1 / 63

Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing in Healthcare Settings in the U.S.

Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing in Healthcare Settings in the U.S. Bernard M. Branson, M.D. Associate Director for Laboratory Diagnostics National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Presentation Outline. Where we are now –

mmendez
Download Presentation

Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing in Healthcare Settings in the U.S.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing in Healthcare Settings in the U.S. Bernard M. Branson, M.D. Associate Director for Laboratory Diagnostics National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

  2. Presentation Outline • Where we are now – • HIV epidemic • Current testing • Previous recommendations and their effects • The case for increased HIV testing • Rationale for revised recommendations • CDC’s New Recommendations

  3. 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Estimated Number of AIDS Cases, Deaths, and Persons Living with AIDS,1985-2004, United States 450 90 AIDS 1993 definition implementation 400 Deaths 80 Prevalence 350 70 300 60 No. of cases and deaths (in thousands) 250 50 Prevalence (in thousands) 200 40 150 30 20 100 10 50 0 0 Year of diagnosis or death Note. Data adjusted for reporting delays.

  4. Awareness of HIV Status among Persons with HIV, United States Number HIV infected 1,039,000 – 1,185,000 Number unaware of their HIV infection 252,000 - 312,000 (24%-27%) Estimated new infections 40,000 annually Glynn M, Rhodes P. 2005 HIV Prevention Conference

  5. Awareness of Serostatus Among People with HIV and Estimates of Transmission ~25% Unaware of Infection Accounting for: ~54% of New Infections Marks, et al AIDS 2006;20:1447-50 ~75% Aware of Infection ~46% of New Infections People Living with HIV/AIDS: 1,039,000-1,185,000 New Sexual Infections Each Year: ~32,000

  6. HIV/AIDS Diagnoses among Adults and Adolescents, by Transmission Category — 33 States, 2001–2004 MSM/IDU 5% Other 1% Other 3% Heterosexual 17% IDU 21% MSM 61% IDU 16% Heterosexual 76% Females (n ≈ 45,000) Males (n ≈ 112,000) MMWR, Nov 18, 2005

  7. HIV Prevalence, NHANES 1999-2002 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 Prevalence of HIV Antibody 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 White M White F Black M Black F Hispanic M Hispanic F White M White F Black M Black F Hispanic M Hispanic F Age 18-39 years Age 40-49 years - McQuillan et al, NCHS: JAIDS April 2006

  8. AHP Strategies • Four priorities: • Make voluntary HIV testing a routine part of medical care • Implement new models for diagnosing HIV infections outside medical settings • Prevent new infections by working with persons diagnosed with HIV and their partners • Further decrease perinatal HIV transmission

  9. Current Testing

  10. Terminology - I • Diagnostic testing: performing an HIV test based on clinical signs or symptoms • Screening: performing an HIV test for all persons in a defined population • Targeted testing: performing an HIV test on subpopulations of persons at higher risk based on behavioral, clinical or demographic characteristics • Opt-out screening: performing an HIV test after notifying the patient that the test will be done; consent is inferred unless the patient declines

  11. Terminology - II • Informed consent: process of communication between patient and provider through which the patient can participate in choosing whether or not to undergo HIV testing • HIV prevention counseling: interactive process to assess risk, recognize risky behaviors, and develop a plan to take steps that will reduce risks

  12. HIV tests* HIV+ tests** Private doctor/HMO 44% 17% Hospital, ED, Outpatient 22% 27% Community clinic (public) 9% 21% HIV counseling/testing 5% 9% Correctional facility 0.6% 5% STD clinic 0.1% 6% Drug treatment clinic 0.7% 2% Source of HIV Tests and Positive Tests • 38% - 44% of adults age 18-64 have been tested • 16-22 million persons age 18-64 tested annually in U.S. *National Health Interview Survey, 2002 **Suppl. to HIV/AIDS surveillance, 2000-2003

  13. Late HIV Testing is CommonSupplement to HIV/AIDS Surveillance, 2000-2003 • Among 4,127 persons with AIDS*, 45% were first diagnosed HIV-positive within 12 months of AIDS diagnosis (“late testers”) • Late testers, compared to those tested early (>5 yrs before AIDS diagnosis) were more likely to be: • Younger (18-29 yrs) • Heterosexual • Less educated • African American or Hispanic MMWR June 27, 2003 *16 states

  14. Reasons for testing: late versus early testers Supplement to HIV/AIDS Surveillance, 2000-2003 100% Late (Tested < 1 yr before AIDS dx) 80% Early (Tested >5 yrs before AIDS dx) 60% 40% 20% 0% Illness Self/partner Wanted to Routine Required Other at risk know check up

  15. HIV Rapid Tests

  16. Public Health Need for Rapid HIV Tests • High rates of non-return for test results • In 2000, 31% did not return for results of HIV-positive conventional tests at publicly funded sites • Need for immediate information or referral for treatment choices • Perinatal settings • Post-exposure treatment settings • Screening in high-volume, high-prevalence settings

  17. Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 Uni-Gold Recombigen Reveal G2 OraQuick Advance

  18. Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 Uni-Gold Recombigen Reveal G2 OraQuick Advance

  19. Four FDA-approved Rapid HIV Tests Sensitivity (95% C.I.) Specificity (95% C.I.) OraQuick Advance - whole blood - oral fluid - plasma 99.6 (98.5 - 99.9) 99.3(98.4 - 99.7) 99.6 (98.5 - 99.9) 100(99.7-100) 99.8(99.6 – 99.9) 99.9(99.6 – 99.9) Uni-Gold Recombigen - whole blood - serum/plasma 100(99.5 – 100) 100 (99.5 – 100) 99.7(99.0 – 100) 99.8 (99.3 – 100)

  20. Four FDA-approved Rapid HIV Tests Sensitivity (95% C.I.) Specificity (95% C.I.) Reveal G2 serum plasma 99.8(99.2 – 100) 99.8(99.0 – 100) 99.1 (98.8 – 99.4) 98.6 (98.4 – 98.8) Multispot serum/plasma HIV-2 100 (99.9 – 100) 100 (99.7 – 100) 99.9 (99.8 – 100)

  21. Additional Rapid Tests • FDA approved – May 2006 Sure Check Stat Pak

  22. Confirmatory Testing • Confirmatory test is essential (not just EIA) • For Western blot: • Venipuncture for whole blood • Oral fluid specimen • Follow-up testing of persons with negative or indeterminate Western blot results after 4 weeks

  23. Postmarketing Surveillance: 2004-2005 Project-specific median (range) for confirmed HIV seropositivity, specificity and positive predictive value of OraQuick (347 testing sites, 14 project areas) No. of Tests HIV Seropositive Median %(range) Estimated Specificity Median % (range) PPV Median % (range) RT whole blood 135,724 0.8 (0.1-2.6) 99.98(99.7-100) 99.2 (66.7-100) RT oral fluid 26,066 1.0 (0-4.0) 99.89(99.4-100) 90.0 (50.0-100) Conventional --- --- 31,811 1.5 (0.5-5.1) Wesolowski et al, AIDS 2006

  24. HIV Screening with OraQuick in MIRIAD Mother Infant Rapid Intervention At Delivery Testing of pregnant women in labor for whom no HIV test results are available; 12 hospitals in 5 cities 7680 women screened • 54 (0.7%) new HIV infections identified • 6 false positive OraQuick tests, no false negatives • 15 false-positive EIAs Specificity: OraQuick 99.92%; EIA 99.80% Positive predictive value: OraQuick 90%; EIA 76% Bulterys et al, JAMA July 2004

  25. Post-marketing Surveillance: 2004-2005 Project-area specific median (range) of clients who received test results (368 testing sites in 17 project areas) Received Negative Results Median % (range) Received Preliminary Positive Results Median % (range) Received Confirmed Positive Results Median % (range) Rapid 99.5(93.7-100) 100 (89.8-100) 89.7 (49.4-100) EIA* 77.3(30.4-98.5) --- 81.0 (33.3-100) *16 project areas

  26. Role for Rapid HIV Tests • Increase receipt of test results • Increase identification of HIV-infected pregnant women so they can receive effective prophylaxis • Increase feasibility of testing in acute-care settings with same-day results • Increase number of venues where testing can be offered to high-risk persons

  27. Previous Guidelines and their Effects

  28. Previous Recommendations

  29. Previous CDC RecommendationsAdults and Adolescents • Routinely recommend HIV screening in settings with high HIV prevalence (>1%) • Targeted testing based on risk assessment • Routinely recommend HIV Testing seeking treatment for STDs • Annual testing for sexually active MSM

  30. Are Recommendations Having Their Intended Effect?

  31. Recommendations Are Not Having Their Intended Effect in Acute Care Settings • EDs account for 10% of all ambulatory care visits 2000 2001 2002 ED visits 108 million 107 million 110 million Age 15-64 68.3 million 69.4 million 69.6 million HIV serology 215,000 201,000 163,000

  32. Characteristics, Rapid Test Positive Patients Identified in ED Screening N= 83 No previous test 47 (57%) Risk factors MSM 30 (34%) IDU 8 (10%) High risk hetero partner 3 ( 4%) No identified risk 42 (51%) - Cook County Bureau of Health Services, 2003

  33. HIV Testing Practices in EDs • Survey of 95 Academic EDs • For patients with suspected STDs: • 93% screen for gonorrhea • 88% screen for chlamydia • 58% screen for syphilis • 3% screen for HIV - Wilson et al, 1999: Am J Emerg Med

  34. HIV Testing Practices in EDs • Survey of 154 ED providers • Average: 13 STD patients per week • Only 10% always recommend HIV test • Reasons for not testing for HIV: • 51% concerned about follow up • 45% not a “certified” counselor • 19% too time-consuming • 27% HIV testing not available -Fincher-Mergi et al, 2002: AIDS Pat Care STDs

  35. HIV Prevalence and Proportion of Unrecognized HIV Infection Among 1,767 MSM, by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity NHBS, Baltimore, LA, Miami, NYC, San Francisco Age Group (yrs) 18-24 410 57 (14) 45 (79) 25-29 303 53 (17) 37 (70) 30-39 585 171 (29) 83 (49) 40-49 367 137 (37) 41 (30) ≥ 50 102 32 (31) 11 (34) Unrecognized HIV Infection No. % HIV Prevalence No. % Total Tested Race/Ethnicity White 616 127 (21) 23 (18) Black 444 206 (46) 139 (67) Hispanic 466 80 (17) 38 (48) Multiracial 86 16 (19) 8 (50) Other 139 18 (13) 9 (50) Total 1,767 450 (25) 217 (48) MMWR June 24, 2005

  36. Previous CDC RecommendationsPregnant Women • Routine, voluntary HIV testing as a part of prenatal care, as early as possible, for all pregnant women • Simplified pretest counseling • Flexible consent process

  37. 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Estimated Number of Perinatally Acquired AIDS Cases, by Year of Diagnosis, 1985-2004 – United States PACTG 076 & USPHS ZDV Recs CDC HIV screening Recs ~95% reduction Number of cases Number of cases 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year of Diagnosis

  38. The Case for HIV Screening

  39. Criteria that Justify Routine Screening • Serious health disorder that can be detected before symptoms develop • Treatment is more beneficial when begun before symptoms develop • Reliable, inexpensive, acceptable screening test • Costs of screening are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease -WHO Public Health Paper, 1968

  40. Example: Newborn Screening Newborn screening results, 1994 • 3.7 million infants screened, twice Cases Incidence PPV PKU 289 1:13,050 2.65% Galactosemia 54 1:62,800 0.57% Hypothyroidism 1203 1:3,300 1.77% Adrenal Hyperplasia 51 0.53% 1:25,100 -Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2000

  41. Example: Chlamydia Screening • First recognized as major cause of STDs in 1970s (Schachter, 1975) • Screening tests (other than culture) became available in the 1980’s – 1990’s • Screening criteria developed based upon results of pilot screening programs • Like HIV: Primary, community (eg, school) and health care provider prevention strategies

  42. Recommendations for Prevention and Management of Chlamydia Trachomatis Infections, 1993 Health care provider strategies: • Recognize and manage associated conditions - MPC, PID, urethral syndrome, urethritis • Implement screening • Sexually active women < 20 years of age • Women 20-24 who meet either criteria or women >24 years who meet both: • Inconsistent use of barrier contraception • New or more than one sex partner in the past 3 months

  43. Rapid HIV Screening in Acute Care Settings Cook County ED, Chicago 2.3% Grady ED, Atlanta 2.7% Johns Hopkins ED, Baltimore 3.2% King-Drew Med Center ED, Los Angeles 1.3% Inpatients, Boston Medical Center 3.8% Study site New HIV+

  44. Rapid HIV Screening in Medical Settings Demonstration Project No. tested No. (%) HIV+ New York City Bronx- Lebanon: 2 clinics, 1 ED 3,039 61 (2%) Los Angeles 2 clinics, 1 ED 6,909 75 (1.1%) 6,283 Alameda County (Oakland) 1 ED 84 (1.3%) Massachusetts 1 outpatient, 1 inpatient, 1 clinic 5,994 45 (0.75%) Wisconsin 3 clinics 1,763 6 (0.34%) CDC, preliminary data - Dec 2005

  45. Lessons Learned • Difficult to obtain written consent and provide counseling, yet still screen the large numbers of patients in acute care settings. • Sustainability will depend on streamlined systems, additional staff, or both.

  46. Rationale for Revising Recommendations • Many HIV-infected persons access health care but are not tested for HIV until symptomatic • Effective treatment available • Awareness of HIV infection leads to substantial reductions in high-risk sexual behavior • Inconclusive evidence about prevention benefits from typical counseling for persons who test negative • Great deal of experience with HIV testing, including rapid tests

  47. Mortality and HAART Use Over Time HIV Outpatient Study, CDC, 1994-2003 14 0.9 0.8 12 0.7 10 0.6 Patients on HAART 8 Deaths per 100 PY 0.5 Patients on HAART Deaths per 100 PY 0.4 6 0.3 4 0.2 2 0.1 0 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

  48. Cost Effectiveness • Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of HAART. Sanders G, et al. NEJM 2005;352:570. “The cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in health care settings, even in relatively low-prevalence populations, is similar to that of commonly accepted interventions, and such programs should be expanded.” 1% HIV prevalence: $15,078 per QALY >0.05% prevalence: <$50,000 per QALY

  49. Cost Effectiveness • Expanded screening for HIV in the U.S. – an analysis of cost effectiveness. Paltiel AD, et al. NEJM 2005;352:586. “In all but the lowest-risk populations, routine, voluntary screening for HIV once every 3 to 5 years is justified on both clinical and cost-effectiveness grounds. One-time screening in the general population may also be cost-effective.”

More Related